115
The admissions he makes respecting the late proceedings in the County Court are as extraordinary as his assertions. No one can read the evidence and not conclude, that Mr Norton broke faith with me, because I broke some stipulation made with him, and that that stipulation was respecting money from Lord Melbourne. I was cross-examined on this point in a manner impossible to endure, by Mr Norton's counsel, who put the question to me five times with little variation, and when for the fifth time I had answered, on my oath, that there was no such stipulation, said sneeringly, "Well, I am bound to take your answer." Now read Mr Norton's admission in his letter to the 'Times':—
'She was quite correct in Court when she swore that her non-reception of the annuity from Lord Melbourne formed no part of the conditions upon which that agreement was come to. I never said it did" …… It is true, therefore, that the agreement of 1848, to allow £500 a year was not conditional upon the relinquishment of an allowance from Lord Melbourne's estate. It is not true that I ever said or suggested the contrary.' …… The confusion that prevailed at the trial rendered it impossible for me to explain the matter to my counsel; and hence arose that part of the cross-examination which implied that a pledge had been given before the signing of the memorandum.'
Mr Norton is unlucky in his choice of legal assistance. When I said that my copyrights had been claimed—the 'benefit of which,' he says, 'she has always been allowed by me to enjoy'—he threw the blame on his solicitor, who had subpoenaed the publishers; and when I complain of being all but accused of perjury, he says it was the mistake of his counsel, to whom he could not explain the matter—though he sat by his side, and suggested in an under-tone almost every question that was asked me in Court. Nevertheless, it is certain Mr Norton did make this assertion, which he now says he did not make. Here is the printed report as given in the papers:—
'Mr Norton—The annuity of £500 was given by me only on this basis. I would not have given this sum, or one farthing, if she had not given me the most solemn assurance that she would not receive one shilling from Lord Melbourne.'
'Mrs Norton—I stand here on my oath, and I say that that is false.' "The reports may be, and are, in many respects, verbally inaccurate; but that Mr Norton made the assertion in Court which he now denies having made; that the whole cross-examination turned upon it; that all public comment and opinion has turned upon it; that it stood as his excuse for breaking his covenant; that it was at once his answer and accusation, in reply to any claim upon him, is incontrovertible; and I so clearly understood it (as every one else understood it) to be his answer to the charge of breaking the agreement, that as soon as I had read over the evidence next morning, I sent a letter to the
